Here is what's under the hood: crit rate formula: (96.98717421*crit rate)/(crit rate+5402.894138) crit dmg formula: 125+((291.14854*crit dmg)/(5581.165185+crit dmg)) ele dmg formula: 100+(ele dmg/(31.93134035+0.003438223475*ele dmg)) Here is an example of the three formulas for prophecy neck (they are divided by 100 to convert into %): crit rate: ((96.98717421*B19)/(B19+5402.894138)+6)/100 (+6% from true tiger soul w/ 50% up time) crit dmg: (125+((291.14854*B20)/(5581.165185+B20))+22+19+10)/100 (+22% from TT5 set, 19% from true tiger soul w/ 50% up time, and the flat 10% from prophecy neck buff) ele dmg: (100+9+(B21/(31.93134035+0.003438223475*B21)))/100 (+9% from true tiger soul w/ 50% up time) AP before normalization: 1652 Normalization formula: AP * [(crit%) * (crit dmg) * (ele) + (1-crit% * (crit dmg) * (ele)] / 2 AP after normalization: 3160.656 There shouldn't be a need to look at individual skills, as skill damages are a function of AP. For example basic sunflower dmg formula is [4.8*AP] compared to awakened sunflower at [10*AP]. The only variable in there is AP, and this is true for every skill. By normalizing AP, I am effectively calculating what each hit of sunflower should do, factoring in crit, crit dmg and ele dmg.
I'm curious to see where you got the "prophecy is much better than VT neck" conclusion, wanna read up on the source. In the maths I did there is one instance where prophecy is indeed better, and that's if the crit dmg % buff is a stacking buff. Otherwise as indicated, its draw back is the fact that crit dmg depends on you getting a crit, which prophecy has a lower % to do so, but also the massive elemental damage that you are losing by using prophecy. But of course, there certainly are alot of assumptions I've made which aren't backed up by data, but one does what one can do. And I've heard conflicting thoughts outside of my own maths that prophecy and VT is about the same, which agrees which the maths. Nonetheless, I'm curious to see where is the data for "prophecy better than VT", will help me in another venture that I'm currently working on.
Dasari gardens there is a vendor beside the dragon express storage guy.
Have you tried in a full party raid? Which was my focal point, which I didn't specify, doh! Performance drops in raid from what I can tell. When I'm not in a raid, even on my dinky little 1060 I can do around 65~75 fps. But in raids, like VT hive queen for example, it goes down to like 25~35, making me a very sad panda. Something about being in a raid really chunks it out, but it seems to be ok on those weekly raids / msp. As to why, I have no clue. The optimization is all over the place. But I am curious as to what numbers you got, it's interesting to see maths. I can get some numbers for ya after I get back tonight, I have a VT raid so I can get some hive queen numbers too. And I don't wanna be a grandpa.. I'm old, but not that old.
Actually, I just realized that we didn't define what resolution we're talking about, because that's important! 1080p res, 1070 ti should get decent frames, around 65 or so, depending on your cpu. To get higher than that in raids will need 1080 ti (no point for a 1080 cuz 1070 ti OC is about that grade). 1080p is probably what you are thinking of. I on the other hand, forgot that I run 1440p monitor, so my requirements on gpu will be higher, doh!
The gpu can get pegged when you've properly configured it like the video that was linked. And when I said people are playing on high / ultra with over 60 fps, I mean exactly that. I don't mean they lower their settings, they have everything maxed, it's possible, you need to configure things properly though, and hardware wise needs to have everything lined up properly in terms of cpu / gpu combination. Oh and also I said that my gpu, which is only a 1060, gets pegged, doesn't mean a 1080 ti gets pegged out. But you do need that caliber of gpu to get decent fps at max settings.
There are people who can get higher than that with a gtx 1080 ti. So don't know what's happening with your system. Not sure what the BS is for, like my gtx 1060 pegged out? or me getting 30 fps on medium during raid? Or that I said you can play at high / ultra with reasonable fps?
Great idea, but 99.99% it won't get implemented, as it "costs money but generates no revenue". Feature requests like these will have to come from the korean crowd, as that's where the dev of bns focuses on. NCWest moves feature requests primarily depending on if it can generate revenue. It's just business, after all, to them.
Why xeon? You want fast single core performance, Xeons are slower per core compared to core i series. Unreal engine 3 doesn't use more than 2 cores (threads). one for physics, one for everything else. And GPU does make a difference, his gtx 1050 is choking to even run the game at medium. It doesn't make sense to have a monster CPU and a dinky old GPU, You are just changing where the bottle neck is.
I have a gtx 1060 3gb and it's pegged out when the graphics setting at medium at 30 fps in raids. You need not just a beast of a cpu, you also need something like a gtx 1080 ti or a rtx 2080 for high / ultra.
That's good, I was afraid my bale 1 alts won't be able to do those.
I am curious to know which part you feel it's off. I'm by no means immune to mistakes, and there are alot of assumptions that I've made, which I've included, and they may or may not be correct. So constructive discussion is welcome. And yes I applied all the buff bonuses, as stated in the opening line of each calculation. I assumed those are always active as well since I don't have data of their trigger rate.
From the article you linked, it says, "In example 2, we see high packet loss and latency at the final destination. This is your cue to inspect the rest of the route." That's what I mean by you need to use trace route. I was under the assumption that your final node (bns server) is experiencing problems (high ping as displayed from your in game client, but this turned out to be not true). So therefore we use trace route to see what nodes we are passing by on our way to the destination. After we figure that out, we ping each individual nodes to see what the problem is, as described in the article you linked. I suppose I wasn't specific enough in my previous post, my bad! If you are using a tool like ping plotter, it does all that for you. You linked a command prompt ping test, which is why I thought you didn't use any tools, and that's where people frequently make mistakes in testing methods and interpretation of the data they get. But ya, the server does have some issues, I agree with you on that front.